Delhi High Court
Suresh Babu vs M/S Consul Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. on 23 September, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
I- 14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: September 23 , 2015
+ W.P.(C) 9162/2015 & C.M.No. 20888/2015
SURESH BABU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Sharma, Advocate
versus
M/S CONSUL CONSOLIDATED PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Petitioner was Senior Commercial Executive with respondent, who
had sought reference of an industrial dispute alleging that termination of
his services was in violation of Section 25 of The Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. Trial court vide impugned order of 7th January, 2015 had framed
the issue regarding petitioner being a 'workman' or not and the said issue
is decided against petitioner holding that petitioner is not a 'workman'
and petitioner's claim petition has been dismissed being not maintainable.
The challenge to the impugned order is on the ground that the
designation of a 'workman' is not important and it has to be seen what is
the nature of work, which is performed by the 'workman'. It is submitted
that respondent-Management had not produced any evidence to show that
petitioner was doing any managerial work. Attention of this Court was
drawn to cross-examination of management's witness (MW-1) to point
out that respondent-Management had not given any authority in writing to
petitioner-'workman' to accept the leave applications of the employees.
It was pointed out that it has come in the evidence of MW-2 that the
attendance register was being kept by the Accountant and the intimation
of being on leave or coming late was given by the 'workman' to the
Accountant. Thus, it was submitted that there is no evidence on record to
show that petitioner was performing any work of managerial nature.
Lastly it was submitted that impugned order is bad in law and deserves to
be set aside.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, deposition of
MW-1 & MW-2 and the material on record, I find that petitioner was not
accepting leave application of the 'workman' but he was doing
supervisory work, as it has come in the evidence that petitioner was
performing work of Senior Commercial Executive and three-four persons
were under his supervision. In this regard, evidence of MW-2 is on
record. The appointment letter (Annexure P-2) of petitioner reveals that
he was appointed by the Director Marketing of the respondent and was
doing work of Commercial Executive and was drawing salary of
`14,650/- in December, 2010.
Sub-Section S (iv) of Section 2 of The Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 stipulates that an employee, who is performing supervisory work
and is drawing salary of more than `10,000/- per month, would not come
within the definition of ''workman''.
Considering the appointment letter (Annexure P-2) and the
evidence on record, I find that petitioner was certainly performing
supervisory work and was earning salary of more than `10,000/- per
month and so, petitioner does not come within the definition of
''workman''.
In the light of aforesaid, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in
the impugned order.
This petition and application are accordingly dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
September 23, 2015
r
